Skip to content
Studies / Out-of-Body Experiences (OBE) / Ensuring Homogeneous Data Collection for…

Psi: A-Z Guide to the Subjective Side

Vernon M. NeppeNeuroQuantology, 2011 Peer-Reviewed
On this page
✦ Imagine …

Can we classify paranormal experiences like mental disorders?

Imagine you're a researcher studying reports of people who claim to have out-of-body experiences. One person describes floating above their hospital bed during surgery, another talks about leaving their body during meditation, and a third mentions similar sensations during an epileptic seizure. For decades, scientists have lumped all these accounts together under the same category, but what if they're actually describing completely different phenomena? Researcher Vernon Neppe realized this mixing of apples and oranges might be why paranormal research has struggled to find consistent patterns.

Researchers propose a new system to categorize anomalous experiences more precisely.

💡

This study proposes that paranormal research needs a detailed classification system—like medicine's diagnostic manual—to stop mixing fundamentally different experiences together.

🔍

Key Findings

The study presents a theoretical framework for standardizing the description and classification of anomalous experiences rather than empirical findings about psi phenomena.

What Is This About?

Methodology

Development of a new classification system (SEATTLE) modeled on psychiatric diagnostic manuals to categorize anomalous experiences using 26 detailed descriptive levels.

Outcomes

Presents a comprehensive framework for classifying psi phenomena to improve research consistency and prevent inappropriate grouping of different types of experiences.

How Good Is the Evidence?

Anecdotal5/100
AnecdotalPreliminarySolidStrongOverwhelming
✓ What supports it?

This is a theoretical/methodological paper proposing a classification framework rather than an empirical study. It was not pre-registered (meaning no analysis plan was filed beforehand) as it presents a conceptual framework rather than data analysis. No experimental controls, blinding, or statistical effects are involved since this is a methodological proposal. The paper has received 7 citations, suggesting modest academic interest. Published in NeuroQuantology, a journal that focuses on consciousness and quantum approaches to neuroscience.

✗ What are the concerns?

This is purely theoretical work without empirical validation or testing of the proposed classification system. The paper lacks data demonstrating the reliability, validity, or practical utility of the SEATTLE framework. The shift toward subjective phenomenology may actually move further away from scientific objectivity rather than toward it.

↔ Interpretation Spectrum

Mainstream: Classification systems are useful tools but don't validate the phenomena being classified. Moderate: Better categorization could help identify genuine patterns in anomalous experiences. Frontier: Detailed classification is essential for advancing scientific understanding of psi phenomena.

Convincing Checklist
2 of 5 criteria met
Met2/5
Large sample (N>100)
Peer-reviewed journal
Replicated
Significant effect
DOI available

To validate this classification system, researchers would need to demonstrate its reliability (different raters classify the same experiences similarly) and validity (the categories correspond to meaningful differences). This study presents the framework but doesn't test its practical utility or accuracy.

This paper attempts to motivate researchers to apply detailed multi-axial evaluations of spontaneous, experimental and induced anomalous experiences.

Stance: Mixed

What Does It Mean?

This researcher essentially created a 'periodic table' for paranormal experiences—a systematic way to organize phenomena that have puzzled humanity for millennia. The ambition to bring the same rigor that revolutionized psychiatry to the study of consciousness anomalies is both audacious and potentially groundbreaking.

Wonder Score
3/5
Fascinating
💭 If this is true — what does it mean for us?
If this classification system proves useful and is widely adopted, it could standardize how researchers study anomalous experiences and potentially reveal patterns previously obscured by inconsistent categorization. However, without empirical validation, its impact remains speculative.
🎓
Science Literacy Tip

Classification systems in science must be tested for reliability and validity before they can be considered useful research tools.

Understanding Terms

📖
SEATTLE Classification
A proposed system using 26 detailed categories (A-Z) to classify different types of anomalous experiences, similar to how psychiatric conditions are categorized
📖
Multi-axial Evaluation
A method of assessment that examines experiences from multiple dimensions or perspectives rather than using simple labels

What This Study Claims

Methodology

The classification system is modeled on the American Psychiatric Association's multi-axial Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM)

strong

The SEATTLE classification system applies 26 detailed phenomenological descriptive levels (A-Z) for evaluating anomalous experiences

moderate

Interpretations

Spontaneous anomalous experiences are often inappropriately bundled together based on brief common descriptions despite being phenomenologically and etiologically distinct

weak

This approach implies a conceptual shift away from attempted objectification of psi phenomena to detailed analysis of specific characteristics and events

weak

This summary is for general information about current research. It does not constitute medical advice. The scientific interpretation of these results is debated among researchers. If personally affected, please consult qualified professionals.